Testing whether ensemble modelling is advantageous for maximising predictive performance of species distribution models

被引:296
作者
Hao, Tianxiao [1 ]
Elith, Jane [1 ]
Lahoz-Monfort, Jose J. [1 ]
Guillera-Arroita, Gurutzeta [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Melbourne, Sch Biosci, Parkville, Vic 3010, Australia
基金
澳大利亚研究理事会;
关键词
BIOMOD; block cross-validation; consensus forecast; model performance; model tuning; spatial autocorrelation; spatial blocking; CLIMATE; UNCERTAINTY; FORECASTS;
D O I
10.1111/ecog.04890
中图分类号
X176 [生物多样性保护];
学科分类号
090705 ;
摘要
Predictive performance is important to many applications of species distribution models (SDMs). The SDM 'ensemble' approach, which combines predictions across different modelling methods, is believed to improve predictive performance, and is used in many recent SDM studies. Here, we aim to compare the predictive performance of ensemble species distribution models to that of individual models, using a large presence-absence dataset of eucalypt tree species. To test model performance, we divided our dataset into calibration and evaluation folds using two spatial blocking strategies (checkerboard-pattern and latitudinal slicing). We calibrated and cross-validated all models within the calibration folds, using both repeated random division of data (a common approach) and spatial blocking. Ensembles were built using the software package 'biomod2', with standard ('untuned') settings. Boosted regression tree (BRT) models were also fitted to the same data, tuned according to published procedures. We then used evaluation folds to compare ensembles against both their component untuned individual models, and against the BRTs. We used area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) and log-likelihood for assessing model performance. In all our tests, ensemble models performed well, but not consistently better than their component untuned individual models or tuned BRTs across all tests. Moreover, choosing untuned individual models with best cross-validation performance also yielded good external performance, with blocked cross-validation proving better suited for this choice, in this study, than repeated random cross-validation. The latitudinal slice test was only possible for four species; this showed some individual models, and particularly the tuned one, performing better than ensembles. This study shows no particular benefit to using ensembles over individual tuned models. It also suggests that further robust testing of performance is required for situations where models are used to predict to distant places or environments.
引用
收藏
页码:549 / 558
页数:10
相关论文
共 29 条
[1]   Ensemble forecasting of species distributions [J].
Araujo, Miguel B. ;
New, Mark .
TRENDS IN ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION, 2007, 22 (01) :42-47
[2]   Evaluating ensemble forecasts of plant species distributions under climate change [J].
Crimmins, Shawn M. ;
Dobrowski, Solomon Z. ;
Mynsberge, Alison R. .
ECOLOGICAL MODELLING, 2013, 266 :126-130
[3]   Partitioning and mapping uncertainties in ensembles of forecasts of species turnover under climate change [J].
Diniz-Filho, Jose Alexandre F. ;
Bini, Luis Mauricio ;
Rangel, Thiago Fernando ;
Loyola, Rafael D. ;
Hof, Christian ;
Nogues-Bravo, David ;
Araujo, Miguel B. .
ECOGRAPHY, 2009, 32 (06) :897-906
[4]   Model averaging in ecology: a review of Bayesian, information-theoretic, and tactical approaches for predictive inference [J].
Dormann, Carsten F. ;
Calabrese, Justin M. ;
Guillera-Arroita, Gurutzeta ;
Matechou, Eleni ;
Bahn, Volker ;
Barton, Kamil ;
Beale, Colin M. ;
Ciuti, Simone ;
Elith, Jane ;
Gerstner, Katharina ;
Guelat, Jerome ;
Keil, Petr ;
Lahoz-Monfort, Jose J. ;
Pollock, Laura J. ;
Reineking, Bjoern ;
Roberts, David R. ;
Schroeder, Boris ;
Thuiller, Wilfried ;
Warton, David I. ;
Wintle, Brendan A. ;
Wood, Simon N. ;
Wuest, Rafael O. ;
Hartig, Florian .
ECOLOGICAL MONOGRAPHS, 2018, 88 (04) :485-504
[5]   A working guide to boosted regression trees [J].
Elith, J. ;
Leathwick, J. R. ;
Hastie, T. .
JOURNAL OF ANIMAL ECOLOGY, 2008, 77 (04) :802-813
[6]   Novel methods improve prediction of species' distributions from occurrence data [J].
Elith, J ;
Graham, CH ;
Anderson, RP ;
Dudík, M ;
Ferrier, S ;
Guisan, A ;
Hijmans, RJ ;
Huettmann, F ;
Leathwick, JR ;
Lehmann, A ;
Li, J ;
Lohmann, LG ;
Loiselle, BA ;
Manion, G ;
Moritz, C ;
Nakamura, M ;
Nakazawa, Y ;
Overton, JM ;
Peterson, AT ;
Phillips, SJ ;
Richardson, K ;
Scachetti-Pereira, R ;
Schapire, RE ;
Soberón, J ;
Williams, S ;
Wisz, MS ;
Zimmermann, NE .
ECOGRAPHY, 2006, 29 (02) :129-151
[7]   Do they? How do they? WHY do they differ? On finding reasons for differing performances of species distribution models [J].
Elith, Jane ;
Graham, Catherine H. .
ECOGRAPHY, 2009, 32 (01) :66-77
[8]   A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models [J].
Fielding, AH ;
Bell, JF .
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, 1997, 24 (01) :38-49
[9]   Bias correction in species distribution models: pooling survey and collection data for multiple species [J].
Fithian, William ;
Elith, Jane ;
Hastie, Trevor ;
Keith, David A. .
METHODS IN ECOLOGY AND EVOLUTION, 2015, 6 (04) :424-438
[10]   Is my species distribution model fit for purpose? Matching data and models to applications [J].
Guillera-Arroita, Gurutzeta ;
Lahoz-Monfort, Jose J. ;
Elith, Jane ;
Gordon, Ascelin ;
Kujala, Heini ;
Lentini, Pia E. ;
McCarthy, Michael A. ;
Tingley, Reid ;
Wintle, Brendan A. .
GLOBAL ECOLOGY AND BIOGEOGRAPHY, 2015, 24 (03) :276-292